Skip to main content

Full text of "Experiments on living animals, useless and cruel : a medical view of the vivisection question, an address, delivered ... March 5th, 1914"

See other formats

* M^ 

m i i » Mi^ 





(A Medical View of the Vivisection Question.) 





W. R. 



M.D., L.R.C.F 

., M.R.C.8., L.S.A., 




THURSDAY, MARCH 5th, 1914. 


Published by 



32 Charing Ckoss, London, S.W. 

,0iv*y \ -*j0\n * a^ m+ 

pa \r\fU let 

The British Union 
for the Abolition of Vivisection. 

(The British Anti« Vivisection Society.) 


President and Hon. Secretary : 

WALTER R. HADWEN, J. P., M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., L.S.A., etc. 

Are You a Member of the British Union ? 

If you are, will you do all you can to help us in 
our great work ? 

If you are not, will you become a Member? 

The Subscription of Membership is from 10/- per annum upwards. 
For an Associate 3/- per annum. Life Member, £5. 


Secretary— Miss B. E. KIDD, 

32 Charing Cross, London, S.W., 

from whom any literature upon the subject may be obtained. 


Monthly Organ of the British Union. 


High-class Articles on the Moral, Scientific, and Historical 
Aspects of the Anti-Vivisection Question ; 
Replies to the Research Defence Society ; 

Racy Criticism of New Vivisectional " Cures" ; 
Chronicle of the Month's Work, &c. 

Should be read by all Humanitarians. 

Specimen Copy sent post free to any address. 

YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION ( t0 P S e de ) 3/- per annum. 


Experiments on Living Animals: 
Useless and Cruel. 

Delivered at Newcastle-on-Tyne, Thursday, March 5th, 1914. 

H PUBLIC meeting, promoted by the Newcastle-on-Tyne 
Branch of the British Union for the Abolition of 
Vivisection, was held in the Grand Assembly Rooms, Barras 
Bridge, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on Thursday, March 5th, 1914, when 
an address was delivered by Dr. W. R. Hadwen, J.P., on 
" Experiments on Living Animals : Useless and Cruel." Mr. 
Frank F. Worthington presided, and there was a large attendance. 

Dr. Hadwen said: Mr. Chairman and friends, — The question 
before us is : Is Vivisection right or is it wrong ? I do not think 
we can for one single moment talk of any half-way house in dealing 
with it, but we have definitely to face a clear and plain issue 
— is vivisection right or is it wrong ? 

Now, there is no question about it that this brings before us 
a great moral issue. If, for the sake of argument, we take for 
granted that vivisection is cruel, then undoubtedly, since every- 
thing that is cruel is wrong, the practice of vivisection must be 
wrong. If, also, we take for granted that good has been derived 
from vivisection and that good results will be achieved from the 
practice in the future, it is equally immoral, because we have no 
right whatever to do evil that good may come. (Hear, hear). 
And hence, which ever way one looks at it, even taking for 
granted the position the vivisector takes up, vivisection, in our 
opinion, is a practice which cannot be condoned. 

Now, for some years past, in fact within the last century, 
there has been a very 'great development of the humanitarian 
sentiment. It is within that century that we have got rid of 


slavery, upon the ground that the black man had equal rights 
with the white man. During the same period we have got rid of 
the traffic in young children, which has been abolished by means 
of the Factories Acts, on the ground that young children had 
rights as well as adults. During the same period we got rid of 
the abuses and cruelties that were carried on in the army and 
navy, such as keel-hauling in the latter and flogging in the former, 
because it was laid down that our fighting men had equal rights 
with .civilians, and that we had no right whatever to resort, in 
dealing with them, to a species of barbarism that would not be 
tolerated in the civilian population. During the same period we 
have got rid of certain cruel sports, such as bull-baiting and cock- 
fighting, because they were considered degrading to the moral 
fibre of the times, and now we are approaching the question of 
vivisection, and we are seeking to get that abolished on the ground 
that these helpless, defenceless, speechless animals have their 
rights, and that we are pleading on behalf of those who cannot 
plead for themselves. 

Inconsistency of the Law. 

Now, their is another ground why we consider vivisection 
wrong, and that is, that it is inconsistent with the true legal 
spirit of this country. For instance, upon the Statute Book there 
is what is called Martin's Act. Under that Act some hundreds of 
persons are prosecuted every year throughout this country for 
cruelty to animals. If a coster-monger drives a lame pony, or one 
with a galled back, or in an emaciated or distressed condition, he 
is promptly summoned by the R.S.P.C.A., or one of its branches, 
or by the police, for perpetrating cruelty, and is brought before 
the Bench. 

It is no use whatever for that man to plead that a sick wife 
and several children were dependent upon him, and that, therefore, 
he was compelled to resort to this measure of cruelty in order to 
gain a livelihood. The Bench would immediately tell him that 
that was no excuse. He had been guilty of cruelty, and whatever 
benefits might result from that cruelty they were bound to convict. 

Now all we claim is this, that the scientists shall be placed on 
the same level as the coster-monger, and we desire to see that the 


scientists are accorded no right to do behind the laboratory door 

what the coster-monger is not allowed to do in the open street. 

But we are told that this is a medical question, and that, 

therefore, the man in the street has nothing whatever to do with 

it, and that he has no right to discuss it, and that this question 

should be left to medical men to settle. Now, what I maintain is 

this : the very moment you take a medical or scientific dogma, 

and incorporate that medical or scientific dogma in an Act of 

Parliament, you take it at once outside the range of medical law 

and you make that question a public, social and political one. 

This being so, the man in the street has as much right to deal 

with that social and political problem as any philosopher in the 

land. Consequently we say that this question, having become a 

great political question, and one which lay Members of Parliament 

are called upon to discuss, and upon which they are expected to 

vote in accordance with the wishes of their constitutents, it 

behoves the man in the street to look into it, that he may view it 


A Question of History. 

But I shall probably be told that the man in the street cannot 
understand it, that the vivisection question is one which only 
medical men can understand, and that the ordinary man in the 
street cannot possibly grasp it. Here, as a medical man, I differ 
entirely. It is not a question of understanding the intricacies of 
any physiological or pathological question: that is not the point. 
The question is this : Has there been any definite knowledge, have 
there been any great beneficial results achieved by vivisection, or 
not ? The moment you ask that question you at once raise an 
issue which is not that of medical intricacies ; you take it outside 
the range of physiological or pathological deductions, and make 
it a pure question of history, and as a question of history I say 
that the man in the street can understand it as well as any medical 
man in the country. Take and investigate the subject. Go and 
look back and see if such-and-such a so-called discovery from 
vivisection has been achieved by vivisection, by experimentation 
on living animals. This is a pure question of historical enquiry, 
and in that respect the man in the street is quite as capable of 
understanding the subject as any medical man in the land. 


But more than that, I maintain that the ordinary man in the 
street knows quite as much of this subject as the ordinary medical 
man, simply because the great bulk of both classes know 
nothing whatever about it. If you take the medical man and 
cross-examine him upon it I think he will confess, in the majority 
of cases, that he does not know anything about the subject. You 
cannot understand it unless you make the subject one of in- 
dependent study. Unless you investigate from an entirely 
independent standpoint, unless you are educated upon it, you 
cannot understand it. The investigation of this matter forms no 
part of a medical curriculum. The individual is not trained in 
any of the minutae of this business. It is a great mistake to 
suppose that medical men generally are authorities upon the 
subject of experimentation upon living animals. We are not out 
to fight the medical men of this land — the 30,000 medical men 
upon the Medical Register, who know nothing about it — we are 
out to fight 400 or 500 vivisectors who are licensed by the British 
Government, and who perform their 80,000 to 90,000 experiments 
annually upon these poor, defenceless creatures. These are the 
men we are out to fight. The medical profession knows nothing 
about it, and practically, in this respect, the medical man is no 
better off than the ordinary man in the street. 

Medical Opinion. 

This is the reason why we seek to educate the public upon 
this matter, because it has become a political question — and it is 
going to be a great one — and, as this political question will have to 
be solved and settled in the House of Commons, we are going to the 
country to stir the heart of the people, that they may tell their 
representatives in the House of Commons how they expect them 
to vote upon it. 

Now, you may ask, " What credentials have you to appeal to 
us ? What gives you any authority to speak on this subject, more 
than any other ordinary medical man"? Simply this: I have 
studied both sides of the question, and the majority of my medical 
colleagues have only accepted one side. I was brought up to 
believe in vivisection ; I accepted at my college and university all 
the assertions that were made in regard to vivisection, namely, 


that great discoveries had been made by this practice, and that it 
was the only means by which such discoveries could be achieved 
in the future, and I took all this for granted, and I accepted it as 
a matter of course. For some years after I was in active practice 
I still believed in it, still backed up the assertions which I had so 
readily accepted, until I was at last led to investigate the matter 
for myself from an independent standpoint, and as the result of 
that investigation I came to the conclusion that no knowledge 
whatever had been gained by experiments upon animals but what 
could have been gained, and had been gained, by other means of 
a harmless character ; and further, I came to the conclusion that 
nothing whatever had been gained from experimentation upon 
living animals that had been of the slightest benefit in the 
amelioration or the cure of any human ailment or disease. 

Now, that is a very strong expression to make use of, and you 
may say that it is a very stringent expression to use in the face of 
the generally accepted opinion of the time. It is not a matter of 
whether I am in a minority amongst medical men or in the 
majority; that is not the point. We have not to deal with 
majorities or minorities, but, as I said at the outset of my address, 
we have to ask ourselves : Is Vivisection right or wrong? The 
unanimity, or otherwise, of the medical profession makes no 
difference to the right or wrong of a question, because the medical 
profession has been unanimously wrong so many times that really 
one has almost come to the conclusion that it never has been 
unanimous except when it has been unanimously wrong. 
(Laughter). Through the whole line of history minorities have, 
as a rule, been in the right. But do not let us argue from that 
standpoint, but let me press upon you again and again, that we 
must ask ourselves : Is Vivisection right or is Vivisection wrong ? 

You may say, " what led you to the conclusion at which you 
have arrived ? Well, strange to say, it was the vivisectors them- 
selves who converted me to anti-vivisection. I found that the 
contradictions among the vivisectors were so great that there was 
no vivisector who brought forward one single statement but what 
another vivisector was always ready to come forward and contra- 
dict it by performing precisely the same experiment as his 

"Wandering- in the Dark." 

I discovered that there was no finality about it, and what was 
more, the vivisectors have so thoroughly realised that fact for 
themselves that they began to ask, and they are urging now more 
and more, that criminals should be handed over to them for 
experimentation, because they find the experimentation upon the 
lower animals is of such an unsatisfactory character. Dr. Preston 
King, who has this year been elected Mayor of the ancient city of 
Bath, wrote in the " Lancet " on September 30th, 1905 : — 

" Consider for a moment what this would mean. At 
present we are wandering in the dark, seeking vainly for 
the light that these experiments alone can give. For 
instance, is bovine tuberculosis communicable to man? 
This question could for ever be set at rest by a few direct 
experiments. Or take cancer. Is this catching from 
man to man, and what is its cause ? During recent years 
the use of anti-toxins has broken the ground in a field of 
treatment before undreamed of. At present we can only 
experiment with these on animals, and the results we obtain 
must be accepted cautiously, for they are liable to the 
errors of all reasonings from analogy." 
That is how he looks upon the futility of animal experiment- 
ation and the necessity for criminals to be handed over to the 
vivisectors, so that they might perform their diabolical work upon 
them. He explained that he would give them a choice between 
that and hanging. 

So much, then, for the reasons for the attitude which we 
take. I do not expect everybody to rise to the ethical standard. 
Unfortunately, we must be, I am afraid, such cowards, and 
the cowardly element rises so pre-emiently in the breast of human 
kind, that we are all more or less prone to take advantage of 
others for our own benefit. Hence, when you come to talk about 
the immorality of torturing creatures in a lower scale of animal 
life than ourselves, in order that we might benefit from it, you 
will find again and again the answer rises to the lips of those to 
whom you are talking. "But if, by means of a little pain inflicted 
upon these creatures — a dog, a cat, a rabbit or a guinea pig, you 
can find benefits which would be of immense value to the human 


race, why should it not be done?" Consequently, we are obliged 
to lower our standard from that of the high morality, to which 
every noble nature in the universe should rise, and show human 
nature that the practice is not merely an immoral one, but an 
unscientific and a useless one. 

Three Scientific Objections. 

I look upon it as unscientific upon three grounds. First of 
all, the differences, anatomically and physiologically, between the 
lower animals and man, are so great that you cannot argue 
scientifically from an animal to a man. In the second place, you 
never experiment upon a lower animal except when that animal 
is in an abnormal condition. Supposing it be under the influence 
of an anaesthetic, then the influence of that anaesthetic upon the 
secretions and juices of the body will be such that it will throw 
out of gear the possibility of arriving at anything like a 
scientific conclusion. 

If, upon the other hand, the animal is not in an anasstheticised 
state, then the fright and the pain of the poor creature will render 
the condition abnormal, and as you can never expect to get a 
normal result from an abnormal state, it is clear that upon that 
issue the practice must be an unscientific one. 

Then, in the third place, you can never judge of any results 
in animal experimentation except by objective signs; that is, you 
can only judge by what you see, and as no two persons ever see 
the same object in precisely the same way, we may here get a 
reason for the numerous contradictions which take place amongst 
the vivisectors. You cannot find out that most important item 
in investigation, the subjective symptoms, simply because the 
animal cannot talk. You are shut up to objective signs, and 
therefore are bound to get misleading results. The whole shores 
of vivisection are strewn with the wrecks of exploded fallacies. 
You simply get the unscientific issue which you might expect 
from an unscientific process. Thus these three grounds are quite 
sufficient to show that vivisection is unscientific. 

But now for the first point, namely, that you cannot reason 
from animals to man. In order to illustrate that, and press my 
point, let us take a glimpse into the region of surgery. Now, w) 


are told that surgery has made immense advances in late years. 
I admit it. 

What Caused Surgery to Advance ? 

There have been enormous advances in surgical art. These 
advances have been almost entirely limited to surgery in the 
abdominal region. That is where practically all the great 
discoveries or advances in surgical art have been made. There is 
scarcely an organ, there is scarcely a growth of any kind in any 
organ of the abdominal region, but can be successfully removed 
by the surgeon. 

What is the ground for all this advance? Immediately the 
pro-vivisector says "experiments on animals!" All our advances 
in surgery, we are told, depend upon experiments upon animals. 

There are three things that have brought about this 
magnificent result. The first was the discovery of anaesthetics. 
By the discovery of anaesthetics the surgeon was able to take his 
time about his work ; he was able to do it throughly ; he was not 
worried to death and tortured in his mind by the thought of 
the agony he was inflicting on the patient on the operating table. 
Anaesthetics were the first foundation of successful advance in 
surgery. Anaesthetics had nothing to do with experiments on 
animals, for anaesthetics — ether, chloroform, and so on — were 
discovered by the discoverers' experiments upon themselves. 

And here let me say that this is a character of vivisection to 
which I have no objection, for as long as the vivisectors will be 
content to experiment upon one another I shall let them go on 
with it until further orders. But I say don't be so cowardly, 
whilst you talk of your wonderful self-sacrifice and all the rest of 
it, as to be afraid to prove it. Don't be torturing these poor things 
that cannot help themselves. 

The first foundation was anaesthetics, and the second was the 
adoption of aseptic methods in surgery — that is, absolute cleanli- 
ness. It has nothing to do with experiments on animals; nothing 
whatever. It was simply the outcome of common sense. We 
know in days gone by it was considered the proper thing for a 
surgeon always to keep one dirty coat, that he had perhaps used 
for twenty years, hanging behind the operating theatre door, in 


which to perform his operation, and dirt was considered to be of 
no importance whatever; dirty surgery was the order of the day. 
Semmelweis, who never performed an experiment upon an animal 
in his life, was the first to introduce clean surgery into the 
operating theatre, and bv means of that he was able to reduce in 
the maternity wards in Vienna the death rate, which had 
been 12 per cent, in one year (1847-48), to I per cent. 
This had nothing to do with experiments on animals. Three 
English surgeons, Lawson Tait, Granville Bantock, and Sir 
William Savory, followed the same lines, and persisted in doing so 
at a time when Listerism, or what is called a?itisepsis, was the 
fashion over the whole world. They were ridiculed and black- 
balled by the profession, but their successes could not be denied. 
At last Lord Lester gave up the dangerous antiseptic spray, and 
what is now the practice in our best hospitals is simply asepsis, or 
strict surgical cleanliness such as was practised by these men. 
The germs in the air can be disregarded altogether, and if you 
concentrate your attention on killing them, you are much more 
likely to kill your patient. 

Now, the third thing in connection with successful abdominal 
surgery, was the discovery of the right kind of ligature and 
suture, that is, the sort of thread that might be used to tie or sew 
together the organs that were to be left behind in the abdominal 
cavity, so that there might not be irritation or inflammation set 
up, resulting in septic poisoning, or that the patient might not die 
through the ligature becoming rapidly absorbed, and the blocd 
vessels giving way. This discovery of the right kind of ligature 
is practically the whole question in abdominal surgery. Did we 
learn how to ligature or suture correctly by experiments on the 
lower animals ? 

Animal Experiments Misleading. 

Now, there is one man who stands out to-day above all others, 
I suppose, as the leading authority upon abdominal surgery. I 
refer to Sir Frederick Treves. Sir Frederick Treves, in his 
speech delivered at Birmingham, in October, 1898, and published 
in the " Lancet " on November 5th, 1898, said as follows: — 

"Many years ago I carried out on the Continent sundry 

( io) 

operations upon the intestines of dogs, and such are the 

differences between the human and the canine bowel that 

when I came to operate on man I found that I was much 

hampered by my new experience; that I had every thing to 

unlearn, and that my experience had done little but to unfit 

me to deal with the human intestine." 

That man is a believer in vivisection; he is an authority upon 

surgery. He is an authority upon that character of surgery which 

has yielded the great glory for the art in modern times; and, in 

the quotation I have made, he has thrown overboard experiments 

on animals. And I say, in the question of ligature and suture, we 

owe nothing to vivisection whatever. 

Professor Lawson Tait, whose name you can conjure with in 
every city on the continent of Europe, was perhaps the most 
brilliant and successful abdominal surgeon of his time, and what 
did he tell us ? That as long as ever he operated upon the basis 
of experimentation on animals he did nothing but lose his patients, 
but directly he gave that up he began to save them. And another 
thing he said in a letter I have, "Vivisection has done nothing for 
surgery but lead to horrible bungling." 

Take another important operation — that of the removal of 
stone from the kidney: and here I will quote another authority 
who believes in vivisection — no less an authority than Sir Henry 
Morris, who held the position of President of the Royal College 
of Surgeons, when he told the Royal Commission recently under 
cross-examination : — 

" The operation that I did in the first place, and which 

I was the first to do, was done quite irrespective of any 

experiments on animals; that is the cutting out of the stone 

from the kidney. This was from knowledge acquired by 

experience from operations on the liver and other organs in 

the human subject." 

You may turn where you like, and you will realise and see 

the truth of my contention that the great claim of the vivisector 

is not fulfilled in surgery, and that the greatest authorities in 

abdominal surgery themselves confess that experiments on 

animals have nothing to do with their success. I will take the 

greatest vivisector of the day, and put him into the witness box, 

( II ) 

and we will hear what he has to say on the subject, namely 
Professor Starling. When he was cross-examined recently, 
before the Royal Commission, he said: — 

"The last experiment must always be on man." 
If, then, the last experiment must always be on man, does it 
not stand to reason that the first scientific experiment must 
also be on man? and if the first scientific experiment must be on 
man, then it is perfectly clear that all preceding experiments 
upon the lower animals must have been unsatisfactory and 

Brain Surgery. 

But now I will take another subject in connection with 
surgery — that is brain surgery, for, of course, there is very little 
surgery to be done in the thoracic region. The alleged triumphs 
of surgery belong chiefly to the brain and abdomen. 

We hear a good deal about brain surgery. We are told 
thousands of lives have been saved because of the discovery of the 
localisation of the brain centres, and that this discovery was due 
entirely to experiments upon the brains of monkeys. Most of our 
opponents deal in big figures, and very strong language. 
Unfortunately for them, we get very few statistics published about 
brain surgery : whilst the abdominal surgeons are prepared to 
record their victories and triumphs, the brain surgeons are very 
careful not to do so. We have challenged Sir Victor Horsley 
again and again, but he declines to bring forward statistics. We 
know how true it is in many of the brain surgical cases of to-day 
that " the operation is successful, but the patient dies." 

Now, with regard to the localisation of the brain centres. Is 
it true we have gained that knowledge from experiments on 
monkeys' brains ? 

Charcot, a great French authority, and perhaps the greatest 
authority upon the brain that ever lived, declared there was 
nothing we could learn from an animal's brain except the 
topography of the animal's brain. 

We all know that if there is one thing more than another in 
which the human differs from the sub-human it is in the character 
of the brain, and here again is a point in which you may rely upon 

( 12) 

it, we cannot possibly argue from animals to man. About three 
years ago Dr. Samuel West, as President of the Medical Society 
in London, gave an address on this very subject, and he then 
announced to his audience that all our knowledge of the brain 
centres depends upon the work of Dr. Hughlings Jackson, and he 
never performed an experiment on an animal in his life. How 
did he arrive at his conclusions ? They were scientific results, and 
he obtained them from the human subject. He watched his 
patients by the bedside; he saw the symptoms and physical signs 
that were developed as a result of some lesion in the brain, and 
then he carefully examined those brains afterwards in the dead- 
house, and proved that in those cases, one after another, certain 
symptoms always bore relation to certain brain lesions, and thus, 
before he died, he was able to show scientifically cause and effect, 
and map out the brain into the various centres, showing what 
centres would be affected when cerlain results of irritation or 
pressure took place in the human body. That was scientific. 
That was judging upon the human species. 

And here let me point to one centre, the centre of speech. 
Just above the ear, upon the posterior lobe of what is called 
the third left frontal convolution, there is a strange little centre 
that governs speech. We know that centre. I had a case only a 
short time ago, which I was able to diagnose immediately as a 
case of paralysis of speech, caused by a little haemorrhage upon 
that particular centre of the brain. Now tell me, how can you 
possibly discover the speech centre in a human brain by 
experiments upon an animal that cannot talk ? And if you 
can discover a delicate centre such as that without experiments 
on living animals, there should be no difficulty whatever in 
discovering the other coarser centres, without resort to barbarism 
of that description. So much then for surgery, whether abdominal 
or of the brain. 

Circulation of the Blood. 

Let me touch on the question of physiology. We are told 
knowledge is everything ; that practical value is not of so much 
importance provided we get knowledge, because knowledge may 
lead to wonderful results, and that we are dependent for our 

( 13) 

knowledge in physiology — the intricate processes concerned in the 
specialized work of the various organs of the body — we are depen- 
dent, they say, upon experiments on animals. You ask for a case 
in point, and immediately we are told — the circulation of the blood. 
But Harvey himself declared that he did not discover the circulation 
of the blood by means of experiments on animals. Any person, 
by cutting one of his own arteries, as you constantly do 
accidentally, with a piece of glass, or by some accident, discovers 
at once that an artery contains red blood, the veins containing 
purple blood. When a person dies and the heart stops, the 
arteries become empty and the veins become full. The heart first 
pumped that blood into the arteries ; it flows from the left side of 
the heart to the arteries, and then through the veins up towards the 
heart again upon the right side. The veins, differing from the 
arteries, have peculiar valves in them, which only allow the blood 
to pass in one direction. That was a discovery that could only be 
discovered in the post-mortem room, as a matter of anatomical 

Now Harvey argued, as he himself declared, that, seeing that 
these delicate valves in the veins must be there for a purpose, 
that purpose was evidently to secure that the blood went towards 
the right side of the heart, and was not allowed to go back again 
through those beautiful little cup-shaped valves. It was clear that 
the blood must flow in a circle, since it was pumped from the left 
side of the heart into vessels which presented no impediment to 
its full force and then passed on through the valves of the veins 
to the right side. The one thing that puzzled Harvey was, how 
did the blood get from the arteries to the veins ? That he never 
discovered. Harvey never did discover completely, to demon- 
stration, the circulation of the blood. 

All that Harvey did was to argue in a logical way that there 
must be a circulation, owing to the anatomical arrangement of the 
valves, and the distinctive difference between arteries and veins. 
Harvey did perform experiments on animals — he tried to prove his 
case by means of them, but it was not by these experiments that 
he made the discovery. Anybody can prove it by the simple 
device of a syringe and a little coloured fluid pumped into the 
vessels of a dead body. Thirty years after Harvey's deductions. 

( 14) 

Malpighi invented the microscope, and with the microscope came 
to light those beautiful little capillary (hair-like) blood vessels, 
which connected the arteries with the veins, and then it was that 
Harvey's logical deduction was proved up to the hilt. Circulation 
was demonstrated beyond all controversy, not by experiments on 
animals, but simply through the agency of the microscope. 

Foolish Experiments. 

Then we are asked, " How are we to know the process of 
digestion except by experiments on animals ? You cannot experi- 
ment on human beings for that purpose!" But, tell me! You 
get the gastric juice of a dog — a dog that can digest a bone — how 
are you going to argue from a dog's stomach to a human stomach 
in order to discover the relative nature of the digestive processes? 
It is too ridiculous for comment. 

Then numerous experiments are being conducted in regard to 
diabetes, chiefly on the pancreas of dogs. But directly you touch 
a delicate organ like the pancreas or sweetbread, you disorganise 
the whole thing and render the condition abnormal. How can 
you arrive at any correct physiological result ? And no one is 
any 'forrader' on the question of diabetes than they were fifty 
years ago. 

So with the gall bladder. Gall stones are actually put inside 
the gall bladder of a dog. The dog is opened and sewn up, and 
the animal is left suffering for days, until decomposition sets in, 
and the poor thing dies in a raging fever. And yet nothing has 
been gained by this cruelty. You have the case of Dr. Rose 
Bradford's experiments upon thirty-nine fox terriers, in which one 
kidney was taken out and a portion of another kidney excised. 
The animal was taken back three or four times to the operating 
table, and portion after portion of kidney was taken away, in 
order to see how long the animal could live with as little kidney 
as possible. He records himself — and here, mark you, we are 
charged with exaggeration and misstatements, whereas for proof 
we have to depend for our evidence upon what the vivisectors 
themselves write— in this case Dr. Rose Bradford records how 
these animals suffered, how they had vomiting, diarrhoea, fever, 
ulcerations, and all the rest of it, for days and weeks and months, 


whilst the hard eyes of the operator watched these poor little 
intelligent creatures in their suffering. When asked at the Royal 
Commission what had been gained by it, Dr. Rose Bradford said 
that he had discovered that dogs never suffered from any disease 
which was akin to human Bright's disease. 

I might also mention the wonderful discovery of the double 
action of the spinal nerves. Sir Charles Bell acknowledged that 
experiments upon animals had done nothing but lead astray, and 
that his knowledge of the double action of the spinal nerves was 
gained from anatomical knowledge, and had nothing whatever to 
do with experiments upon animals. Physiology, the whole way 
through, owes nothing to vivisection. 

Fashions in Medicine. 

I will turn from that to the question of medicine. Now, 
medicine we cannot call a science. It never will be. Medicine 
runs in fashions, and there is as much fashion in medicine as 
there is in ladies' hats, and medical fashions change with equal 
rapidity. Constitutions differ most enormously. What you 
might give in one case would certainly not do in another. Each 
individual patient must be an individual study to each individual 
medical man, for you cannot reason positively from one human 
being to another, let alone from an animal to a human being. 
You never know even that a dose of castor oil is going to take 
precisely the same effect upon one person as another, and so with 
everything else. 

Modern medicine has been running in the range of what is 
called the serum and vaccine therapy. 

This new fashion depends upon the theory that there is a 
specific germ as the origin for every specific disease. It was the 
invention of a French chemist, by the name of Pasteur, who, late 
in life, some seven or eight years after he had been struck down 
with partial brain paralysis, took for the first time in his life to 
the study of medicine, and whether he did not understand 
properly, or could not, I do not know, but he turned topsy-turvy 
the discovery that had been made by a celebrated savant, Antoine 
Bechamp, who had shown that certain organisms found in the 
atmosphere were fermentative bodies, and further, that the same 


kind of organisms existed in the human body, and that under the 
action of disease, these strange little bodies became converted into 
bacteria of various shapes. Pasteur turned this topsy-turvy, 
and instead of accepting Bechamp's theory, that these micro- 
organisms were the result of disease, he came to the conclusion 
they were the cause. He jumbled up bodies of fermentation with 
bodies of disease, and launched upon the world the germ theory 
of disease, and the whole medical profession, owing to Pasteur's 
standing as a chemist of renown, accepted this theory wholesale, 
and have been running mad on it ever since. 

The Germ Theory of Disease. 

Professor Koch, of Berlin, when this theory first came out, 
said, if true, it would have to conform to certain definite rules, 
namely, if a germ were the causation of a disease it must always 
be found in connection with that disease. Secondly, it should 
never be found apart from that disease. Thirdly, it ought to be 
cultivated outside the body, upon a separate medium; and lastly, 
when inoculated into the lower animal it ought to produce a 
disease similar to that which obtained in the human subject. 
Now, how does that pan out ? The Editor of the " Lancet," the 
authority that practically the whole medical professional men bow 
to, stated on March 20th, 1909, in a leading article, as follows : — 
" It is not at all rare to fail to find the causal organism 
in an individual case of the disease, and the explanation 
usually given is that the search has not been as yet suffi- 
ciently thorough. Again, many organisms which are 
considered to be causal, are frequently to be found in healthy 
persons. The organisms of enteric fever, of cholera, and of 
diphtheria may be cited as examples of this, and to explain 
these facts we have to invoke the idea of healthy 'carriers' 
of disease. When a causal organism is injected into an 
animal, often it happens that it gives rise to a disease 
bearing no clinical resemblance to the original malady. 
Thus we cannot rely upon Koch's postulates as a decisive 
test of a causal organism." 
Now, seeing that Pasteur himself accepted that dictum of 
Koch, practically the whole foundation of the system is gone, and 


if the foundation is gone, the whole fabric of serum and vaccine 
that has been built upon it must go too. 

Diphtheria Anti-toxin. 

Now let us take the case of diphtheria, which is a disease 
that is supposed to be due to the Klebs-Loeffler bacillus. This 
bacillus I will guarantee to find in practically every mouth in this 
audience to-night, and according to this new method of diagnosing 
diphtheria, I should be perfectly justified, if I found it in your 
throats, in certifying the medical officer of health to-morrow 
morning, that you were suffering from diphtheria, and getting a 
half-crown fee in each case for doing so. 

We are told that anti-toxin, which is obtained from experi- 
ments made on animals, has reduced the death-rate of diphtheria 
from something like 30 or 40 per cent, down to 10 per cent. That 
is according to the Metropolitan Asylums Board returns. The 
peculiar thing is this, that it is true the reduction did commence 
directly after anti-toxin was introduced, but when that reduction 
began — it is passing strange, but the number of cases increased. 
Where there were scores of diphtheria cases before anti-toxin was 
introduced, they ran to thousands afterwards. Why? Because 
the old diphtheria was diphtheria. It was the genuine article, but 
the new diphtheria was not in any sense diphtheria, but in 
numerous instances was just a sore throat with a germ in it. But 
this sore throat was said to be due to this germ, and so it came 
about that an ordinary sore throat which our grandmothers would 
have cured by putting a stocking around the neck, and blowing 
down the throat flour of sulphur, and giving a good dose of 
brimstone and treacle, now became ' diphtheria.' Thus, by 
throwing in a heap of cases, you reduce your mortality, because 
you throw into the count an enormous number of common sore 
throats. Whilst the deathrate in these cases treated with anti- 
toxin were reduced from 30 per cent to 10 per cent, however, the 
cases treated without anti-toxin were reduced from 13 to 3 per 
cent. As a matter of fact the whole of these statistics are not 
worth the paper they are written on, because the statistical basis 
is absolutely fallacious. The only way in which you can possibly 
judge diphtheria is by diphtheritic deaths. Let the Registrar 

( 18) 

General speak. For fifteen years after anti-toxin was introduced 
compared with the fifteen years before, the diphtheria death-rate 
increased no less than 25 per cent. These are genuine diphtheria 
deaths that you cannot mistake. Any improvement in diphtheria 
has had no more to do with anti-toxin than it has with the man in 
the moon. 

The diphtheria death-rate began to increase as soon as ever 
the new Education Act came in. By cramming the whole of the 
insanitary board schools with children by the score, by the 
hundred, so that they were packed in any place, where they could 
not be properly accommodated, like herrings in a box, the air 
became impure and diphtheria spread proportionately. Now, 
with enlarged board schools, airy premises, with so many cubic 
feet for each child, and so much play ground space, now being 
erected all over the country, diphtheria begins to go down. The 
basis of these so-called zymotic diseases is insanitary conditions, 
and by pumping in these filthy serums, poison is added to poison 
in the human body. They are going the wrong way to work 
altogether. They should seek to remove the cause that produces 
the disease. 

Plague and Consumption. 

Take the question of plague. Years ago plague was very 
rare in India, but since they have started sera and vaccines, they 
have really been giving the people plague, and the plague has 
become endemic. More than a million natives are being swept 
off the scene by plague every year, and yet here are the festering 
refuse heaps and insanitary conditions — horrid conditions which 
the rats had to help the Indian Government to get rid of, and then 
the rats are blamed for having produced the natural results of 
insanitation. Instead of sending sanitary engineers to put the 
matter right they are sending these filthy tubes of serum, this 
dung hill medicine, as Sir Benjamin Ward called it, which only 
made the natives weaker than before. 

We are told, too, that tuberculosis has declined, and that 
that depends upon the discovery of the tubercle bacillus. Why ! 
tuberculosis had gone down 50 per cent, before the germ was 
discovered. The disease has been going down ever since, in 

( 19) 

proportion as the sanitary conditions of the country have 
improved, as back to back houses have been removed, streets 
made wider, good water brought into the neighbourhood, and 
proper sewage conditions carried out. And here is a striking fact, 
and I want you to think it over. I went carefully through the last 
return of the Registrar General the other day, and I find that in 
practically every case where these inoculations have been used 
for the cure of disease, the death-rate has gone up. In all these 
diseases — scarlet fever, measles, and all zymotic diseases — which 
are dependent entirely upon sanitary conditions for their 
prevention, the death-rate has gone down. 

This is one way in which we could get rid of the trouble. 
People are occupied, medical men are occupied, too much with 
curing disease instead of being occupied in preventing it. Instead 
of medical men running after these fashions of the times, if they 
would help John Burns to pass his Bill for the better housing of 
the working classes, we should then arrive at something like a 
scientific solution of the great problems of disease in this country. 

The Testing: of Drug's. 

Now I come to another subject, and that is the question of 
drugs. I hear people say, " How are you going to test your 
drugs thoroughly ? Surely you would not start by testing drugs 
upon human beings ; you would test them on animals ? " You 
cannot argue from animals to man, and never was this so true as 
in the case of drugs. Supposing you were to let some rabbits out 
into a field of belladonna, and you found those rabbits ate up that 
belladonna and grew fat on it, and then, judging from that, you 
might say to your wife the next morning," I say, Mary, the rabbits 
have flourished on that belladonna; I think we should give it to 
the children, and see if it will fatten them up too." This would 
be followed by a coroner's inquest, which shows you that you 
cannot argue from animals to men. Goats can eat hemlock with 
impunity, but it is fatal to the human species. Then take the 
little hedgehog, a most interesting little creature. We talk very 
often about such animals in a supercilious way, but we do not 
understand them. The more you come to know these creatures, 
the more you will be surprised at the intelligence they possess. 


We do not know the extent of it. Take the little hedgehog. 
Supposing you were to try and experiment on that, you will be 
surprised when I tell you that a hedgehog can swallow as much 
opium as a Chinaman can smoke in a fortnight, and it can wash 
it down with as much prussic acid as would kill a whole regiment 
of soldiers, and still be as lively as ever. How are you, then, 
going to judge from animals to men ? The short-tailed monkey 
would be killed with the smallest quantity of strychnine, and the 
long-tailed monkey could take as much as you like. Then take 
the cat. Citric acid, the active principle in lemons, will kill a cat 
immediately, and if we were to judge the effect of citric acid upon 
the familiar cat, we should never have known the enjoyment of a 
glass of lemon juice in the summer. Many other instances could 
be cited; until you have tried a drug on man you cannot tell 
whether the effect will be similar or quite different. It is 
impossible to argue from animals to men ; it is clearly out of the 
question altogether. 

Is Vivisection Cruel ? 

Well, now, having dealt with the unscientific character of 
vivisection, having shown it to be misleading and immoral in 
character, I want to ask the question, is it cruel? 

I can quite understand somebody saying: supposing it is mis- 
leading — well, after all, we do kill these creatures, and we kill 
them for food. (I myself have been a vegetarian for 35 years.) 
The argument will be used in that way, and therefore if there is 
no cruelty about it, what does it matter? Is there cruelty 
connected with this practice ? That is the point we have got to 
argue. Let us go to the vivisectors, and let them give an answer. 
Here is what Professor Thane said before the Royal Commission, 
that the removal of a portion of the second kidney, or the taking 
away of the thyroid gland, " makes the animal very ill," and he 
refers to other operations which are " followed by severe illness." 
Then again he says, in regard to Certificate B., that where 
the animals are operated upon, and then allowed to recover 
afterwards, they do suffer severely whilst under observation in 
the experiment. Then with regard to Certificate A. That is the 
one used mainly for inoculation. In some cases the injection is 


followed, said the Inspector, by " great pain and suffering." He 
mentions the injection of tetanus toxin and the injection of 
plague also. And Professor Starling, the vivisector, gives it as his 
opinion that " in a pathological laboratory a certain amount of 
suffering may be an essential part of the experiment." 

Professor Pembrey, who went before the Royal Commission, 
said, "I think painful experiments are necessary; I myself have 
performed them. I mean, painful experiments as against experi- 
ments under anaesthetics. A common sense view should be taken 
of this question, and pain must be admitted. I admit that I have 
done painful experiments, and I am not ashamed of it. Pain is 
part of the scheme of nature!" He added that, given enough, the 
animal would be relieved by the pain producing fainting. This 
was spoken boldly before the Royal Commission. Will you tell 
me, after that, vivisection is not cruel ? 

Where Anaesthetics are Useless. 

But now you will say, " What about anaesthetics ? Does not 
the Act order anaesthetics ? Are not anaesthetics used ? " Let us 
look at this question. There are three kinds of experiments — 
first there are cutting operations, which are performed under 
anaesthetics. The licence enforces that. Where an anaesthetic is 
given the animal is killed before it recovers. According to the 
last return, 2,584 of these operations were performed in the 
previous year (1912). And then there are the experiments where 
an animal is cut, perhaps some organ or other is removed, and the 
animal is allowed to recover, and linger for a certain time 
afterwards. Even after that animal has suffered pain, the operator 
need not kill it, because he is under no obligation to kill it until 
the object of the experiment has been obtained. There were 2,240 
of these. There remains the third class of experiments — inocula- 
tion. These are inoculations for every kind of disease, of various 
drugs and poisons, and so on. There were no less than 78,550 of 
these experiments last year — the very worst kind of vivisection, in 
which no anaesthetic was used. And many of these cases, the 
Inspector admits, were productive of pain, and must be. Take for 
instance Dr. Klein's experiments on cats' eyes; they were actually 
published some years ago in the Local Government Board's Blue 


Book. Dr. Klein illustrates himself what was the effect of the 
inoculation upon the cats' eyes. They were swollen up to an 
enormous size, and the whole eye ultimately presented the 
appearance of a crater-like ulcer. What do you think of that 
vivisection? You know what it means to get anything in your 
eye, and here we have the agony of the cat, whose irritated eyes 
were held open for days and weeks. That is " painless " inocula- 
tion. The Research Defence Society will tell you in support of it, 
that this is nothing — it is the prick of a pin. But it is the 
development that we have to look at. 

How Anaesthetics are Administered. 

Then take the cutting of the organs of animals, like those 
experiments on the kidneys of fox-terriers, which I have men- 
tioned. I quite admit that practically every animal is put under 
an anaesthetic for the cutting operation, but before ever that 
anaesthetic is administered, I suppose in every case without 
exception, an injection of morphia is given. Morphia has simply 
the effect of stupefying the animal to a certain extent. It destroys 
its power of resistance, but it does not destroy its sense of pain, 
unless a lethal dose is given. When the animal is therefore 
stupefied by the morphia, the anaesthetic is given. They dare not 
give it too much anaesthetic ; if they did they would lose their 
animal, especially a dog, which is very susceptible indeed. It is 
only by the greatest care that you can keep a dog alive under full 
anaesthesia, especially when chloroform is used, which is of the 
most deadly nature to the canine race. When the anaesthetic is 
given you dare not give too much to the animal. It already lies 
like a log on the table under the influence of the narcotic, and you 
cannot tell how much that animal may be suffering. 

When we perform a major operation, we appoint one man to 
look after the anaesthetic and nothing else. Is that the case with 
the animals ? Very often the whole thing is mechanically 
regulated by the laboratory boy, from the next room. The 
vivisectors told the Royal Commission that the anaesthetic was 
adminstered in proportion to the body-weight of the animal. 
Can they tell by the body-weight how much is needed ? Let me put 
it in this way. No man looks solely after the anaesthetisation 


of that animal. The experimenter may (look at itoccasionally, 
but that is nothing. The animal has hacMts power of resistance 
destroyed by the morphia or a little drop of curare, which 
paralyses the whole muscular system, and leaves the senses as 
vivid as before. The animal lies in that state. Now, I ask you, 
is there one solitary surgeon in the world, with a reputation to 
lose, who would dare to operate upon a human being — to perform 
a major operation — under circumstances of that description ? 
Would he dare to pass in a whiff of anaesthetic according to the 
weight of the patient upon the operating table, without having a 
man to watch every breath and to watch the conjunctiva, and to 
notice every little turn and twist that may take place in the move- 
ments of the patient before him ? No ! And therefore I want to 
know, if no surgeon would dare to perform a major operation upon 
a human being under such circumstances, what right has anyone 
to perform such an operation upon a poor helpless dog, simply 
because it cannot defend itself? 

The Home Secretary's Admission. 

Once again I will put the vivisector into the witness box, and 
clinch the matter in a way which cannot be gainsaid. They used 
to divide these operations into two classes — those which were 
painful, and those which were painless. A few years ago they 
stopped that, and a member of Parliament asked the Home 
Secretary why it was that these experiments were no longer 
divided into painful and painless ? The answer was that in many 
cases the operator himself could not tell whether the animal 
was 'suffering or not. They had to give it up entirely, and no 
longer make the division of painful and painless experiments. 
With an answer such as that, repeated by Professor Thane before 
the Royal Commission, we can only come to the conclusion that 
if the operator himself could not tell whether the animal was 
suffering or not when placed on the torture trough, it lay there 
under a ghastly risk. I think I have shown clearly that vivisection 
is immoral, unscientific and misleading ; that it is cruel and that 
it is useless, and under these circumstances I want to know what 
we can possibly do with such a practice, except to demand of the 
House of Commons that it shall be totally abolished ? 


Bui, bear with me just another moment or two. A person 
will say what are you going to do ? If you are going to do away 
with experiments On animals what will take its place ? That is a 
foolish sort of argument. Because they got rid of a certain evil, 
which has been proved to be useless and unscientific, why should 
something else be needed to take its place ? The thing is 
wrong, and you do not want anything to take its place. But how 
are you to learn to get advancement in the treatment of human 
ailments and disease ? What is the right way ? 

The True Way to Learn. 

Well, I will not shirk the position. There is only one way by 
which you can learn how to treat human disease, and that is by 
experimentation upon human beings. "Ah!" you say, "you are 
as bad as the vivisectors." My friends, no. There is no need for 
us to experiment upon human beings. Nature herself is experi- 
menting every hour, every day, every week, and every month of 
the year. Nature experiments in accidents and disease of every 
kind. These experiments are passing before the eyes of the 
doctor all the way through, and if he will keep his eyes open, if he 
will take notice of the symptoms and physical signs, and if he will 
compare these symptoms and signs by the bedside with post- 
mortem room results and thoroughly judge of cause and effect, he 
will be able in all these cases of nature's experiments to put to the 
test the best methods that he can possibly devise for their allevia- 
tion and cure, and that without unscientific, cruel, misleading and 
immoral processes such as those which I have denounced 

For instance, we hear a great deal about goitre, an enlarge- 
ment of the thyroid gland. What has been discovered by 
experiments on monkeys ? Why, long years ago the origin of 
goitre was found out in Berne, in Switzerland, by experimentation 
upon eighteen patients who had enlarged thyroid glands. They 
had them removed for the purpose of treating the patients, and 
then it was found that the absence of the thyroid gland produced 
a condition known as myxoedema, or cretinism. Why did they 
want to start the wholesale excision of the thyroid glands in 
monkeys to prove the same thing? We have continuously the 


experimentation upon animals in order to prove opinions which 
are already thoroughly and absolutely established. 

I think now we have seen from every point of view how 
absolutely baseless is the claim for vivisection, and I will not 
occupy your time further, because I am hoping that there may be 
some questions that will be asked, and that they will, perhaps, 
illustrate some further points which I have not been able to touch 
upon to-night. But before sitting down, I should like to ask the 
question, how this practice is to be dealt with, and by what 
means ? 

The Restriction Bill. 

There is already a Bill before the House of Commons for the 
total abolition of this practice. What we say is this, that if this 
practice is so absolutely bad, immoral, unscientific, misleading, 
cruel and useless, then there is no ground whatever for keeping 
such a measure as the Vivisection Act upon the Statute Book. 
To truckle or to compromise with the evil we consider a treachery 
to the poor creatures who have got to suffer. There is another 
Bill before the House of Commons. This is a restriction Bill, 
presented by another Society, which is called an Anti- Vivisection 
Society ; but it would perpetuate vivisection, only with restrictions. 
The promoter of that Bill says in effect, "Here in my Bill is 
provision for inspectorships, and it propounds to Parliament that 
every animal, during a cutting operation, shall be placed under an 
anaesthetic, and that the inspectors shall be present to see that 
the anaesthetic is properly administered." Now, the Government 
Inspector has always shown himself favourable to vivisection, 
and every annual Government report points to the same thing. 
One of the most recently appointed inspectors was a member of 
the Research Defence Society until he received the appointment, 
when he resigned. 

The Government, like all Governments, is always ready for a 
compromise, and in compliance with this wish they have added 
two extra whole time inspectors, and have appointed a superin- 
tendent whole time inspector as well. Now you see the effect that 
the pursuance of this restrictive policy has had. It has simply 
created an additional vested interest in vivisection itself, and they 


make now vivisection practically the bread and butter of these 
paid officials, and this makes it more difficult for us than ever to 
get rid of it. This is called a half measure — they say they are 
giving us half a loaf; we reply that it is giving us a stone for 
bread, because it is perpetuating the evil practice, and it is 
professing to perpetuate it by suggesting that there is something 
in the practice which is good. Are there any benefits whatever 
which the public have derived from it ? I say there are none, and 
that you are exploiting these poor creatures for your own cowardly 
designs. There is another objection to this proposed restriction. 
How are you going to deal with the pain and suffering that follow 
inoculations ? It is useless to say that the animals are to be killed 
when they begin to show signs of suffering. The suffering is a 
part of the study. And even if you could enforce such a rule, 
how could all the animals be watched continually for signs of 
pain ? Animals usually endure in silence, and there are the long 
nights of suffering, when the vivisectors are absent. Inspectors 
are clearly useless for this. 

The "Higher Animals' Bill." 

There is yet another Bill, and this seeks to take the higher 
animals out — it is to take out dogs, cats, monkeys and so on. But 
here again I say : What are you doing ? I agree with Jeremy is not a question whether animals can reason much or 
little, or whether they can understand more or less, but whether 
they can feel? I do not see why all the rest of the animals should 
suffer because a certain few privileged ones are taken out, and why 
vicarious sacrifice should be resorted to in that way. By taking 
out these few animals you are practically justifying the vivisection 
of the lower animals, which you think are not quite so intelligent 
as those you are seeking to protect. 

I say that what we want to do is not to occupy the public 
mind with the differences in the animals, but to show the evil of 
vivisection itself, and when we have shown that, and proved that 
the practice of vivisection is bad and wicked, then vivisection 
itself will be swept away, and the whole animal creation will 
be free. The " Higher Animals' Bill " practically condones the 


You see we have our work before us, and there are great 
difficulties in the way. The whole medical profession stands up 
the one for the other, and the way they do that makes a great dead 
wall which seems almost impregnable. But so long as we have 
God and right upon our side, we are bound to succeed. There 
never was a movement yet, however great the forces that were 
against it, which aimed at abolishing an evil, but sooner or later 
that evil was shattered to pieces. They told Wilberforce, when he 
proposed the abolition of the slave trade, that the slave trade was 
bound up with the prestige of the English people, that the slaves 
did not suffer, that they were little more than beasts, and even 
Bishops in their pulpits advocated the continuance of the slave 
trade. Wilberforce said, " I care nothing for that. The one idea 
with me is that these men are flesh and blood like ourselves, and 
that they have rights as well as we have." And he went to the 
country, and touched the great throbbing heart of the British 
people, until thirty millions of money was paid down, and, thank 
God, slavery, so far as English authority is concerned, was ended. 

The Lesson of all Reforms. 

And even Shaftesbury, who was one of a little band of 
reformers, carried his point in the same way. They were taking 
children from the workhouses and orphanages, and bringing them 
up here to the North of England, to work in the factories from 
early morning until late at night. " It is blood money," said 
Shaftesbury. Even the eloquence of John Bright and of Gladstone 
was used to maintain the infamous traffic, but Shaftesbury said, 
" I care nothing for that. It is a foul and wicked practice, and it 
will have to go." And he never rested until the Factory Act was 
passed, and that abominable system swept away. The odds 
against him were greater, far greater, and the vested interests far, 
far deeper, than those which we have to face. 

Even Howard, after he had tramped from prison to prison, to 
expose the dreadful conditions that existed in his time, was told 
that they must go on. Women, for instance — witches, as they 
were called, who were lying festering in their own filth for months 
together — were put into Lancaster Gaol becauseiothers had a right 
to put them there, and, it was said, " they deserved it," and even 


there again the Bishops maintained that the system must be kept 
going, as evil must be rigorously punished. Poor Howard died 
without seeing his object gained, but the death of Howard brought 
to mind the words he had said in his life time, and an agitation 
was commenced, as a result of which the prisons were over- 
hauled, and the foul system was ended. 

It was exactly the same in our lunatic asylums, where great 
reforms were brought about, and we have little idea of the 
enormous opposition that the reformers had to fight against. 
But they went forward, for they knew that they were right, and 
that they had God upon their side, and they were not going to 
bend down at the behest of men of means and influence, who spoke 
against them. 

What has been done before can be done again. We are here 
to ask you to stand by us and to help us, and to be determined 
that nothing shall be done until this foul blot upon the Christian 
standard of this country has for ever been wiped away. Remember 
this, my friends :— 

The hills have been steep for man's mounting, 

The woods have been dense for his axe, 
The stars have been thick for his counting, 
The sands have been wide for his tracks. 
The sea has been deep for his diving, 

The poles have been wide for his sway, 
But bravely he's proved by his striving 
That where there's a will there's a way. 

F. J. BROOKE, Printer and Bookbinder, 2 Westgate Street, Gloucester. 23207 

The British Union 
for the Abolition of Vivisection. 

(The British Anti-Vivisection Society.) 


President and Hon. Sec : Hon. Treasurer : 

WALTER R. HADWEN, J.P., M.D., etc. The Rev. J. STRATTON, M.A. 

Secretary: Miss B. E. KIDD. 

Offices: 32 Charing Cross, London, S.W. 

From the Autobiography of Miss F. P. COBBE, 

"To those of my readers who may desire to contribute to the 
Anti-Vivisection Cause, and who have shared my views on it as set 
forth in my numberless pamphlets and letters, and to those specially 
who, like myself, intend to bequeath money to carry on the war 
against scientific cruelty, I now earnestly say as my final counsel : 

44 Support the British Union." 

In the case of benefactors desiring to bequeath legacies in support 
of the Cause, they are respectfully urged to state clearly in their 
Wills, 4, The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection," and to 
make them payable to the Treasurer for the time being. 

Form of Bequest. 

I bequeath unto the Society called THE BRITISH UNION 


free of Legacy Duty, and I direct that the same shall be paid to 
the Treasurer forthe time being of such last- mentioned Society. 

By virtue of the Act of Victoria, cap. 26, all Wills and Codicils must be in 
writing, signed by the Testator, and attested by two witnesses in the presence of the 
Testator and of each other. 

A Donation of Five Pounds and upwards constitutes a Life Member. 
An Annual Subscription of Ten Shillings constitutes an Annual Member. 
Remittances by Crossed Cheque or Postal Order. Smaller Donations gratefully 

An Annual Payment of 2s. 6d. constitutes an Associate of the Union. 


Pamphlets by Dr. HADWEN, J. P. 

c . , Per 

Single. 10Q 

Some Recent Vivisection Practices in English 

Laboratories = Id. 1/- 

A Medical View of the Vivisection Question 2d. 2/- 

The Antitoxin Treatment of Diphtheria - 2d 1/6 

The Cult of the Vivisector = = - £d. 4d. 

Tuberculosis and Cow's Milk - = = 1d. 1/- 

Was Jenner a Charlatan ? - = = 1d. 1/- 
Debate between Dr. Hadwenand Mr. Stephen 

Paget at Shrewsbury. - - - 2d 1/6 

Debate between Dr. Hadwen and Dr. Eastham \(\. \/~ 
Correspondence between Dr. Hadwen and 

Sir Victor Horsley = - - - Id. 1/- 
Views of Men and Women of Note on the 

Vivisection Question - 2d. 2/- 
(Illustrated -with Portraits). 

The Case against Vaccination - - - 1d. 1/- 

The Controversy in "The Standard" - 3d. 2/6 
A Vivisection Controversy — Mr. Stephen 

Paget'sclaims.and Dr. Madwen's answers 2d. 2/- 

Antisepsis or Apsepsis - - - - 1d. 9d. 

Jennerism and Pasteurism - - - Id. 9d 


The Early History of the Anti-Vivisection Movement. 
Light in Dark Places 



Why We Object to a Restriction Bill. Id., 9d. doz. 
Do you Know? (Illustrated). \d,6d.perdoz. 
The Policy of Abolition. Id , //- per doz. 
What about Anaesthetics? \d., 6d. per doz. 

By Miss A. F. WHITELEY. 

Some Medical Views of Vivisection. 3d. each, 2/6 doz. 

F. J . BROOKE, Printer and Bookbinder, 2 Westgate Street, Gloucester. 23204 

•ffl IHIN*) W» w*